Most Supreme Court cases involving religion interpret the Free Exercise Clause or the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. First, the Free Exercise Clause prevents the government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. This means that an individual can practice their religion as they choose. However, the Supreme Court has held that neutral and generally applicable laws that burden religious practices are constitutional in most cases. Countering thisSmithrule, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act and parallel laws in some states require courts to apply strict scrutiny to laws that substantially burden religious practices. TheSmithrule controls when no RFRA applies.

Meanwhile, the Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion." The Founders thus intended to ensure the separation of church and state. Traditionally, courts often analyzed these cases under theLemontest, which required a law to meet all three of the following requirements:

• The law has a secular legislative purpose
• The principal or primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion
• The law does not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion

However, Establishment Clause doctrine recently has shifted away from theLemontest toward an emphasis on historical practices and understandings. Many of the most notable Establishment Clause cases have involved schools and public monuments or displays, and one of the recent cases we discussed included school staff led prayer at a school sponsored event.

1) Does the Lemon test has effectively been overruled by recent Court rulings?

2.) what is a recent Court rulings and reasoning emphasizing historical practices and understanding